Making Gamers

Adam LaMosca

New member
Aug 7, 2006
Making Gamers

Last week Shigeru Miyamoto granted an interview [] with's Talk Asia. It's typical Miyamoto: he's affable as ever, and effortlessly manages to reduce gaming's most intriguing and controversial subjects to a series of humble but self-assured pronouncements that dovetail nicely with his reasons for Nintendo's recent hardware successes. Midway through the interview, Miyamoto muses on his efforts to expand the gaming market:

There is an abundance of themes that people are interested in, and video games have only touched on few of them ... By introducing these available themes into video games, it will help people relate to the games better, and we may even be able to convert them into those who can not live without video games.
His comments are right in line with what we're used to hearing from Miyamoto and fellow Nintendo figureheads. But that last bit, the part about "those who can not live without video games," has a particularly interesting ring to it. At first, I wasn't sure what to make of it.

It's the kind of descriptor usually reserved for that slice of the populace whose very identity depends upon their gamer status. In other words, the supposedly game-obsessed. Yet here is Miyamoto, asserting that widespread conversion to such a state could be the outcome of something as simple as addressing basic human interests.

Even as a gamer, I find the vision of a populace "who can not live without video games" a difficult scenario to imagine, at least initially. In fact, I'm tempted to write it off as a pipe dream, or at very least, optimistic marketing hyperbole. But then I consider how in recent years our personal lives have become dependent upon once-intimidating gadgetry. Mobile phones, email clients, and web pages have long since become the threads by which we bind ourselves to one another as families, friends, and co-workers.

By the same token, we've always been dependent upon the means by which we feed our imaginations. Whether we're caught up in a current television series, the latest movie release, or a book published a century ago, the need for fantasy and reverie remains an inescapable part of human existence. We can't imagine our lives without entertainment, and as a society we've readily embraced new technologies that bring us such experiences.

When you think about it, gaming now finds itself at the intersection of community, entertainment, and technology. The current generation of online-enabled gaming hardware is ideally poised to deliver experiences that are deeply imaginative and socially connected, and few gamers would argue with the supposition that games can offer experiences as essential as those offered by other media. The rest of the populace remains skeptical, though, tending to view games as shallow diversions at best, and at worst, malignant forces.

Ignorance obviously plays a significant role in encouraging unfavorable sentiments toward gaming, but the lack of thematic variety the medium offers shouldn't be underestimated either. In this respect, Miyamoto's obviously onto something. In order to enjoy widespread appreciation, gaming desperately needs to expand its boundaries to encompass the vast range of human interests and experiences. But that isn't nearly enough to accomplish what Miyamoto's talking about.

Even those enticed by the rich presentations offered by modern games still face a significant barrier to entry. Gamers and game developers all too often ignore the fact that familiar game design conventions are often completely alien to non-gamers.

Not long ago, I spent an evening playing Resident Evil 4 in a room full of middle-aged non-gaming guys. They were entranced by the game's content and presentation, and in the weeks that followed I was pleasantly surprised by their incessant gaming-related questions. A few ultimately decided to buy consoles of their own, for the first time in their adult lives. Their initial enthusiasm was soon met by frustration, though.

One spent more than $250 on a PlayStation 2 and an assortment of critically acclaimed games, only to decide after a few weeks that modern games' interfaces were simply too complicated and confusing. He shoved it to the back of a closet shelf to gather dust. Another bought a GameCube but abandoned it to his children after the painful realization that he couldn't make it past several games' introductory levels without their help. And I've known other non-gamers who had similar experiences, who were thrilled with games' visual presentations but completely baffled their design conventions and interfaces.

So it'll take more than depth and variety. Accessibility is also key if we want to convert non-gamers into those who can't live without games--something else Miyamoto, to his credit, has also repeatedly asserted. Nintendo, with its unique Wii and DS interfaces, seems on track in this regard. In fact, the internet abounds of late with sugary anecdotes of formerly game-hating grandparents bonding with their technology-obsessed progeny over Wii Sports bowling matches. But the question remains: are such experiences really enough to truly create lifelong gamers? I'm not so sure that few energetic rounds of Nintendo's cheerful sports simulations are going to convince the rest of the world that gaming is much more than an occasionally entertaining diversion.

It's worth noting that building "casual" games has in recent years emerged as a popular and wildly successful alternative to developing traditional full-length titles. Yet casual games, with some notable exceptions, tend to offer simple, pleasurable distractions ultimately devoid of emotional depth. Don't get me wrong, I love PopCap's offerings, and I'll be the first to admit that such games have successfully wormed their ways into the daily habits of millions of non-gamers. But Bejeweled and its ilk have ultimately done little to advance the status of the gaming medium in the eyes of the nongaming public. Like the Wii's current offerings, I don't think they're fostering widespread adoration or appreciation of gaming in general.

Games need more than accessibility in order to appeal to the mainstream media consumer. They need more than depth, and more than variety. In order to rise to the status of essential mainstream media for the populace at large, games need to deliver all of these things at once. Most consumers can live without simple, accessible distractions, no matter how immediately accessible or lovingly designed. And many can live without vast, sprawling worlds embellished with familiar fantasy and science-fiction trappings. But if games were to offer a wide array of deep, varied, and accessible experiences that connected individuals from all walks of life, maybe then they'd be something the world couldn't as easily ignore.

Sound like a pipe dream? Sure it does. But movies do it. So does literature. As does music. And just about every other widespread form of media that the world truly can't live without. Is it too much to ask of games? I don't think so.


Bongo Bill

New member
Jul 13, 2006
While I am certain that no harm can come from accessible input hardware, I think that those aren't the way that Nintendo's counting on turning the tide. I'm just gonna go ahead and say it out front: new interfaces are just an excuse. They're there to try to force developers to abandon their ideas of what a game should be, and re-evaluate it from the perspective of the ultimate newbie: a person who hates buttons. However, as far as I've seen, there's no reason to suggest that a normal human being is incapable of figuring out how to work a Dual Shock in the space of an afternoon.

The learning curve does intimidate them, yes. But the biggest learning curve of all has nothing to do with which appendages you use, and everything to do with what you're trying to use them for. Games assume that you already know how to play. That's the problem. You'll get a brief display of what buttons do what, and some color-coding or icons if you're lucky, and from there on out the game simply assumes that you know how to use them. First-person shooters assume that the player knows how to move and look around, pick up ammo by walking over it, and shoot everything that moves. RPGs assume that the player can figure out what those bars mean, talk to everyone, and break into houses. Platformers assume you know how to time and control jumps just the way Mario does. And don't even get me started on real-time strategy (I can't figure out where to start in those half the time). Other genres? What other genres?

Getting around these issues does not require a second screen or magic motion sensor. It doesn't even require a stylus or a shiny white case. What it does require is some games that can break the mold and attract a lot of attention outside the incestuous gaming press. Nintendo's marketing engine provides the latter, but what good is a marketing engine if it's still selling the same old refrigerators (Now with accelerometers!) to the same old Eskimos (Who still demand more polygons)? But by preventing developers from falling back on the tried-and-true design principles that either produce games too complex for the uninitiated or too simple for the veterans, they've forced them to take some risks. And some of them are paying off.

All they have to do is keep it up. Get a good variety of games with that asymmetrical white bar on the top of the case. Sell it to everyone and their grandmother. Get them to take the first step. The problem before was that intermediate grades of complexity - the ones that fell between Popcap and Valve - were missing, so it was impossible to ease into the really outstanding games. If Nintendo can create and sustain a complete spectrum of accessibility, and market it right, then virtually everyone who plays a Wii or DS (which, increasingly, is looking like "most people") will find themselves being sucked into gaming's greatest strengths.

Then, finally, when everybody's doing it, we'll be able to see whether we can't live without them.

There are books for children just learning to read, and there are books for people who're just learning to follow a story. There are books for people who just want to hear a good yarn, and there are books for people who love to track intricate subtleties across hundreds of pages to try to figure out just what it was the author was saying. There are simplistic movies for kids, and there are visceral, witty, and cerebral movies for increasingly distinguishing viewers. No matter at what you're looking for, you can find something you can appreciate at your own level in any medium... except games. It's not that the intermediate games aren't out there; it's that you can't find them unless you already care enough about them to prefer the more complex ones.


New member
Feb 22, 2007
Yup. If I had to guess why your (to the author) non-gaming friends got attracted to Resident Evil 4 and afterwards dropped it was because they saw a movie (an odd one, yes), not a game. I have two friends of my own who prefer watching me play to paying themselves. The games look good, they have a great story, and they want to see that look and follow that story, but they do not want to get too involved because they don't care much (or at all) about the gameplay mechanics. My mom would never play anything more complicated than Solitaire, Lines or MagicMatch not because she couldn't, but because she's not interested. She works a full work day, studies in a University and also takes care of the house chores. She has nor the time, nor the willingness to engage in anything more complicated than the mentioned "shallow entertaining distractions". And if I had to guess, I'd say most (non gaming) people are like that.

There is a huge fundamental difference between games and the mentioned books, movies, and other forms of entertainment - games are interactive. And here's the tricky part - NOT EVERYONE WANTS INTERACTION with their entertainment. Most (again, non-gaming) people have to interact so much on a daily basis that when they relax, they want to really RELAX - by enjoying a good looking movie and/or a compelling storyline without physically or mentally lifting a finger. And trying to convert those people is, in my opinion, a waste of time. To me, it is the same as a car company trying to figure out how to make a 2-wheeled car that would appeal to [motor]bike riders and convert them into people who can't live without a car.


New member
Jul 25, 2006
I think Bongo Bill and shadowbird are both making excellent points here, My only addition is that I think it's a mistake to assume that literature is as widely accepted as you claim it to be. I'll grant you there are persons like myself who "can't" live without books. But certainly there are people I meet on a regular basis who refuse to read anything that isn't for a class.

A large enough portion of our peers don't enjoy thinking. This is the singular difference I've found between the groups. It's got overlap on both sides, some thinkers don't enjoy games, some gamers aren't thinkers. But largely I see the issue being as follows, If gaming takes effort for someone, and they have to think (read: put effort into) about what they're doing, they feel a sharp pain in the front of their brain from lack of use and stop. The same goes if you try and get anyone to expand their horizons, this hurdle isn't limited to gaming in the slightest.